Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Two COVID-related RFCs open

Opinions are wanted at Talk:Ivermectin#rfc 502FD33, which is about whether to include a date on a guideline (would that portray it as being out of date/wrong?), and at Talk:Variant of Concern 202012/01#rfc 84ABC44, which is about whether/how to name the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant that's been in the news recently. If anyone has opinions about either subject, then I'm sure the organizers would be very happy to hear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

All this talk did make me look, for anyone interested there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 which might be of interest for the future. The first one there is an interesting question. HLPD (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• In fact, if there's anybody left here with spare cycles, I'm just about burnt-out on the ivermectin article (currently running at > 10,000 views/day). From the sources, this seems to be a drug which has an evangelical following for its supposed effect against COVID-19, despite a lack of high-quality evidence. The quickest way to get up-to-speed quickly is probably this news piece. Extra eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the ivermectin page—and, particularly, the Ivermectin section in COVID-19 drug repurposing research—I am baffled at this insistence on RfCs instead of regular discussion and even more perplexed at the adding dates/direct quote thing. This is pretty much the opposite of what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Citing sources would have us do. I'll have a look and drop in on the Talk pages. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Right. It's become an enormous time sink because of the constant push to promote ivermectin. There's been agitation off-wiki as well.[1] The dates thing is to try and create a narrative, like this[2] just happened - and never mind that WP:V is not satisfied. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

      There's also a general misunderstanding about how RFCs work. They are normal talk page discussions with an advertising mechanism. Back in the day, RFCs were literally just a list of links to discussions (example). But in the early days of the COVID lockdowns, they were very, very frequent, and they often morphed into votes (not discussions) that established binding rules that applied to all COVID-related articles. We now have many inexperienced editors who think that the majority vote should win and that if you can't get everyone to agree within one or two days, then you should start yet another RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin has dealt with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether we should be thinking about some WP:NOTHERE blocks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Note I have just answered this[3] edit request, which is further evidence of an issue. Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC) I think it's time to lean in harder against this sort of shenanigans. We have plenty of evidence—clinical practice guidelines (WHO, IDSA, NIH), recent systematic reviews (*actual* systematic reviews, not the McCullough et al. type), the SOLIDARITY trial, recent NEJM publications, etc. Maybe revamp the "Treatment" section of the main article? And start considering topic bans/partial blocks for editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to advance a POV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Time was, I would have been more than happy to give strong warnings and even apply sanctions if that failed, but recently an attempt to give a warning was immediately undermined by Colin who simply contradicted me. I don't need the hassle, so I've stepped away from doing that. I wish you better luck, Fvasconcellos. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC) From the perspective of a non-admin, I think it is vital that admins are proactive in their application of the general sanctions for COVID topics, otherwise the sanctions have the effect of tying the arms of cautious/diligent editors behind their backs, while more incautious/problematic editors go on the rampage. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is a community behavioural guideline. Just because the covid sanctions permit an admin to block and ban doesn't permit them to forget that this is the encyclopaedia anyone is welcome to edit, nobody is perfect to begin with, and admins are depicted with a mop, not a flamethrower. RexxS threatened to topic ban an editor from all of medicine who had only made a few edits one evening, and a single revert, to a single article. RexxS escalated conflict rather than seeking to calm things down when he found himself reverted. RexxS threatened to be the blocking admin of an editor he was involved in (the early stages of) an edit war with. And then RexxS made hostile personal attacks on editors who disagreed with his approach. Recognising when an editor is here in good faith and making newbie mistakes while citing sources much of the rest of Wikipedia would find perfectly acceptable, or when an editor has spent the last two weeks single-minded in pushing a controversial topic that is not accepted by experts, is not exactly rocket science. But if some admins find that difficult then stepping away seems a wise decision. -- Colin°Talk 12:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Colin. For heaven's sake could we deal with the issue at hand. We are dealing with an inexperienced editor yes; he has been asked multiple times to review the policies and guidelines. Editors are tired out trying to deal with this editor and other editors who are editing articles related to Covid and this is not going to end soon. I and others have spent a fair amount of time explaining policy to him and I am hoping he will begin to understand. The time for "don't bite the newbie" is past and the time for criticism of a past situation is past. If an admin feels he can't act in this situation now, fine, that is pertinent to how we deal with this now, and that's his business, but could we please not go back to something that has no bearing on this situation now. We need to clarify and shorten not extend. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Littleolive oil, it is my understanding (but with convoluted threading, I could be wrong), that Colin was responding to a post from RexxS that referenced a completely different case. I have threaded your commentary; my apologies if I got it wrong. Could we all please stay focused on this case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Littleolive oil, I think you got the wrong end of the stick here, as Sandy explained. -- Colin°Talk 10:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Trying to have it both ways is pure hypocrisy. You complain about editors not meeting MED guidelines but then undermine the message when they are warned. An editor made edits that contravene MEDRS, was reverted for that very reason, and promptly re-inserted their edit. My response was to warn them that I was willing to topic ban then if they persisted in that behaviour, and your response was to tell them they had done nothing wrong. If you're unable to understand the difference between warning an editor of the consequence of repeatedly inserting unacceptably sourced content, and taking action against chronic bad behaviour, then you should not be involving yourself. Making admin judgements is always difficult, and it's not helped by your arrogant attitude that you always know best. You don't. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I am strongly supportive of the proposals for monitoring of Wikipedia content. As admins probably realize, maintaining standards of neutrality is a challenge. A good starting point might be Coronavirus disease 2019 (see Talk - Ivermectin section)--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC) No. There are no proposals for monitoring Wikipedia content. There are policies and guidelines which editors adhere to to edit Wikipedia articles. You are not using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you call for neutrality, but your own. Several editors have attempted to explain to you that your understanding is not based in Wikipedia and I have asked you to review Wikipedia especially WP:NPOV. Alex explained in a very thorough clear way here what WP:MEDRS is and I have asked you to review policies and guidelines. You still seem to misunderstand neutrality despite requests to review it. Here is what neutrality means: Editors can add content that is verifiable and reliable based on the mainstream sources on that topic. More RS for a topic and more content is possible. Topics that may be considered necessary for an article but are on the fringe of the topic in terms of reliable sources may be mentioned but that mention must be in terms of a general ratio of that fringe content/sources to the mainstream content/sources. Health/medical related articles require more reliability in terms of sources because peoples' lives could depend on what we post. Therefore as an encyclopedia, that is, an online collection of RS content which usually means published, MEDRS related articles require secondary sources except in very rare cases. Those sources are systematic reviews, sometimes textbooks, not partial reviews, not single studies, not lectures or speaking engagements. Systematic reviews mean research has been replicated or reproduced. For Ivermectin there is a simple, update on the drug on the NIH webpage. That's all we get to say in the article. One line, a few words, is an appropriate length for information that is fringe to the mainstream information on the article as a whole Coronavirus disease 2019. You are pushing fringe information, and pushing for content that is not explicitly in the source. Explicit is necessary in an encyclopedia otherwise you are synthesizing content from multiple sources a big no no, or extrapolating based on your own reading of multiple sources or lines in any one source WP:OR, another no no. You are an inexperienced editor; Wikipedia is a complex system for editing which takes time to learn. I have been here a long time but am still learning. You are bucking very experienced editors and seem to be either misunderstanding what you read or have not read or re read policies and guidelines. I reread these frequently to make sure I am understanding nuance. I suggest you do the same. There is no shame in rereading multiple times to figure out how Wikipedia functions. I suspect most editors whatever their experience do. When multiple editors are saying the same thing that's often a sign that one is misunderstanding. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I agree with most of what you are saying. I'd just add that this point here is subtle (QEXPLICIT IS NECESSARY IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OTHERWISE YOU ARE SYNTHESIZING CONTENT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES A BIG NO NO, OR EXTRAPOLATING BASED ON YOUR OWN READING OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OR LINES IN ANY ONE SOURCE WP:OR, ANOTHER NO NO). Wikipedia necessarily synthesizes *content* because no one source adequately explains an issue, and there mere combination of relevant material will induce the the reader to construct theories explaining facts when there are no well tested scientific theories. I guess the problem comes when the literature is silent on theoretical topics, or when the combination of information seems to suggest the *text* is giving the interpretation rather than the reader themselves through thought. While the issue has subtleties it's still possible to do this blatently Talpedia (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I will take your views into consideration. I am still very much interested in the question that I posed to you in Talk at Coronavirus_disease_2019.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) WhatamIdoingalso suggested you familiarize yourself more with how Wikipedia runs. She says here on your user page, "I'm concerned that you don't understand Wikipedia's core content policies." Please take these suggestions seriously. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Apologies. I saw that you did respond at Coronavirus_disease_2019. The formatting was a little weird. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I do think with this[4] mainspace edit, a line has been crossed. I don't see how repeatedly inserting WP:SYNTHESIS and misleading medical content is compatible with the heightened need for care in this subject area. (Add: now this) Alexbrn (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Agree Alexbrn. I think they've been warned enough about pushing this and editing without consensus to restore that. -- Colin°Talk 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not a fan of the ANI circus board, but perhaps we have reached that point. I'm seeing quite a few editors here trying to explain policy and guideline, to apparently no avail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Again? I've followed up on his talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Yes, again. Per WP:GS/COVID19#GS any uninvolved admin may impose sanctions. ANI will just result in even more community time being wasted on this, I fear. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Times for a vacation. ....editorsimply here to advocate to the detriment of our readers.--Moxy 🍁 17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @JzG: who sometimes deals with such situations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC) JzG has temporarily given up his admin tools, and who could blame him? If I have to keep putting up with the sort of shit that Colin throws out, I'll be the next. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC) RexxS, admins have to deal with being held accountable when using and threatening to use the tools, and stay cool when the situation is hot. I am not the only editor who has disagreed with your approach and aggressive style. There is no need to use this sort of language, and it doesn't do you any favours. -- Colin°Talk 10:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Bummer. (No personalizing, RexxS :) Perhaps it's off to ANI we go on these edits, then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee has dealt with this: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Boing has issued a warning only, so far. Sandy, my comment to Colin was to ask him to not bring into this discussion that which is is off-topic. I'm off-Wikipedia for now so no reply necessary. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm not sure about the logic of "you can't compare two things you need to get someone else to compare them" on that page, seems a bit of a stretch to me. The issue seemed to be more to do with the fact that a whole bunch of context was missing. You could just write "On X Y said Z. On X' Y said not Z" But I'm not going near that on the talk page because drama! Talpedia (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: Wikipedia doesn't create a "log" of position changes from health orgs. That would become very unwieldy very quickly. Per WP:MEDRS health information should be up to date. If some change of position is truly noteworthy, there would be some decent source mentioning why, which could then be used. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

:/ I agree that reporting all changes to position would be unwieldly. But the motivation and justification here seems more to do with WP:Due and synthesis than original research, when confined to "not being able to infer that something has changed yourself". Though... I guess if a change *is* noteworthy someone will probably have spoken about it. The example that comes to mind is something like ECT. That this could be given without consent and no longer can seems significant - but there is probably a bunch of writing on the topic. I suspect if the description of the change was made in a balanced way with context of the ivermectin page (rather than the covid page) it might have been allowed to stand Talpedia (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the motivation is to try and create a narrative of "upgrade", aligned with the advocacy "out there" on the web.[6] Reading the full NIH guidelines[7] they do in fact give a bit of detail about what's changed (p.4) :

Since the last revision of the Ivermectin section of the Guidelines, results from several randomized clinical trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or made available as non-peer-reviewed manuscripts. ... Because many of these studies had significant methodological limitations and incomplete information, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions about the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

But I don't suppose this is the way the now-topic-banned editor wanted it presented. Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct about you diagnose of intent, difficult as these things are. I had a look at the source showing the change and was sort of suprised when it basically said "there is insufficient evidence to justify ivermectin's used" when the comment said "ivermectin was approved for trial". I found the comments about "the same approval as X, Y and Z" a bit weird as well. Yes... but also the same level of evidence as topical antihistamines, cold showers or anti-anxiety medication. I'm mostly just doing "wiki-legal-analysis" here because... I don't quite know. Talpedia (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The "same level as" wording is the same as the (not really true) talking point adopted by the advocates. See here where is says "Their recommendation has now been upgraded to the same level as those for widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma". I think it's been fairly clear what's going on here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's been fairly clear what's going on here.

I suppose. I guess the difference between POV-pushing and having an interesting perspective is being willing to read the sources and follow the rules, and most fringe positions have a plausible moderate alternative attached to them. That said ivermectin isn't exactly "niche". Talpedia (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• The admin efforts are appreciated but I'm not sure they go far enough: the community is now faced with a RfC on whether Wikipedia has "legal exposure" over its (correct) ivermectin coverage: Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#RfC about the selection of accepted medications for COVID-19. Really, a TBAN is required to stop this. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Done, per EvergreenFir SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn and SandyGeorgia: tban for 1 month. Not convinced it's long enough but it's a start. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• And now the socking.[8] Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  You beat me to it. So, Alexbrn, what are you waiting for, anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Now indef blocked as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm reminds me of this WP:Go ahead, vandalize. It's quite helpful when people make things quite so black and white.... Talpedia (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's happening again, with a newly-reawakened account thrice adding about the "upgrade" from NIH.[9][10][11] The talking points in the edit-summary are familiar. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Shall we take the whole lot off to WP:RFPP? @DMacks put Ivermectin under semi-protection, and we might need to consider Wikipedia:Extended confirmed protection while this guy is socking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly controversial question

I've noticed that a lot of the medical articles seem like people are on a mission to make sure nothing even slightly "alternative" is ever suggested to be okay. I found some obvious examples on the page for alternative medicine. Like this: "Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective." It just seems very opinionated. Does it need to lack biological plausibility? It seems like it is just not proven to be effective. And is this a real definition or something someone editing Wikipedia decided?

I'm wondering if this is intentional or if I can assume some nuance is allowed on subjects where insufficient evidence exists. With newly recognized, underrecognized, or rare conditions, sometimes there is insufficient evidence in general and sometimes the medical consensus does not reflect the reality of a particular condition. For example, I imagine the consensus opinion is that you need to have been in a car accident to sublux your hip. However, joints do not follow the normal rules when the connective tissue holding them in place is weak. In a case like this, there is the general medical consensus about how hips work and then there is the consensus among medical professionals who focus on connective tissue disorders about how hips work in connective tissue disorders. Most of the medical field has never thought to wonder what would happen if ligaments ligaments supporting the hips were weak and people being the way they are, some would argue their position strenuously without understanding the particular circumstances.

I noticed this pattern with the article on Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Someone working on the article deleted everything that cited an article coauthored by Dr. Afrin as well as a whole chunk of the article, saying this "this entry includes references to unreliable sources, including those by Lawrence Afrin (a practitioner of "integrative medicine" pseudoscience), and a non-expert advocacy group called "Mast Cell Action". Reliable sources such as a recent consensus document should be used instead. The consensus document warns against sources like Afrin." The point about Mast Cell Action is legitimate.

However, this is one of a number of things that some set of authors has called a consensus document and it doesn't actually say anything about Dr. Afrin. The diagnostic category was invented within the past 20 years and the controversy (the reason for the multiple papers by different authors claiming there is a consensus when none exists) is about whether to prioritize sensitivity or specificity when you can test for one mediator, which is only elevated when mast cells are overactive but is not always elevated when mast cells are overactive, or whether to test multiple mediators, some of which are produced by multiple cell types but in aggregate may capture cases that the prior method would miss. The bottom line is that people in the field have strong opinions and the whole topic will be irrelevant when the testing improves. Dr. Afrin unfortunately chooses to associate with people who practice integrative medicine but has worked primarily in the mainstream medical field.

Dr. Afrin is on the allergy and immunology subgroup of the International Consortium on EDS and HSD," along with one of the coauthors on the paper that the original author cited as being the correct view. Whatever his personal failings, they do not appear to affect his research. If you decide that everything Dr. Afrin has ever said is wrong and insist on only mentioning things that have been been proven in multiple reliable trials, you can't even write an article about the syndrome.

RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:YESBIAS and WP:YWAB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry; ignore this. Not sure how to delete it... RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A script will come by next week and automatically move it away. There's no need to do anything else right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Prostatorrhea

Can anyone have a look at Prostatorrhea and evaluate it for the usual "should this be deleted, upmerged, or kept and expanded"? I found one modern one source, but every other result I turned up was from the 1800s, so...I'm dubious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Google Scholar shows 100+ academic papers on it, so I'd assume it's legit. That said it looks like possible an upmerge to prostatitis and make sure Prostatorrhea is on Wiktionary? HLPD (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• User:Premeditated Chaos should you initiate the discussion, I think merge to prostatitis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The source I cited mentions it appears unrelated to prostatitis, are we sure that merging it there makes sense? Are there other sources that contradict that? (I just don't want to go merging something in error) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, first, we should have more opinions. Second, this is concerning. Both said, we can still discuss it under Differential diagnosis at both prostatitis and Dhat syndrome (that is how I see you can preserve content about a dubious entity via a redirect, while putting it in DUE context relative to what the source says— remembering that it is not a review source). Just my opinion; wish we had others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS check at Wuhan Institute of Virology's talk page

We are gathering MEDRS for a discussion on a controversial topic about SARS-CoV-2 origin (the lab leak conspiracy theory), and this source has been challenged:

1. Lundstrom, K, Seyran, M, Pizzol, D, Adadi, P, El-Aziz, T, Hassan, S, Soares, A, Kandimalla, R, Tambuwala, M, Aljabali, A, Azad, G, Choudhury, P, Uversky, V, Sherchan, S, Uhal, B, Rezaei, N, Brufsky, A. "The Importance of Research on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2". Viruses. 12 (11). doi:10.3390/v12111203. PMID 33105685.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

   ... The self-assembled COVID consortium, consisting of international experts in bioinformatics, structural biology, molecular biology, immunology, and virology, has just published a Letter in the Journal of Medical Virology in response to publications on the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. It stated that despite the consensus of SARS-CoV-2 originating from bat CoV RaTG13, SARS-CoV-2 had demonstrated significant discrepancies to other human Coronaviruses related to host tropism... As the current consensus within the scientific community strongly indicates, it is improbable (though not zero) that the SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations...

The challenge was this one:

• PMID 33105685 is an editorial, in a MDPI journal - avoid, powerfully

Please comment, thanks Forich (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology#Lab leak theory discussion, revisited appears to be the relevant section on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the source below considered MEDRS?:

1. Lau, S, Luk, H, Wong, A, Li, K, Zhu, L, He, Z, Fung, J, Chan, T, Fung, K, Woo, P. "Possible Bat Origin of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 26 (7). doi:10.3201/eid2607.200092.

Forich (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich, it's an excellent journal – one of the best – but it's a primary source, which isn't ideal. You'd have to be careful how you used it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist request

If you use your watchlist regularly, please put Wikipedia:Vaccine safety on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vaccine safety? Wikipedia:Vaccine safety makes it seem like we have a policy or guideline on vaccine safety... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 05:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be more typical, but there's no requirement to use that convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Management of multiple sclerosis Featured article review

I have nominated Management of multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hey guys. I think somebody need to do something about Convulsion. CyberTroopers (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, CyberTroopers. I've cleaned it up. Please feel free to WP:Be bold yourself, or to let us know if you run across anything similarly bad in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Great. I would like to but currently have limited access to my device. Thank you for helping. CyberTroopers (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Coronaviruses

The new article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 may need some attention from experts. It currently gives a lot of weight to the lab leak hypothesis, with statements like Two conflicting theories have gained prominence since the first cases were detected: natural accident and laboratory accident.. The article's author is ScrupulousScribe. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm doesn't look massively unbalanced to me. From the title of the source used for that reference, it seems likely to be an accurate summary of the source. One thing I would say, is that it would be nice to include what *science* has to say on the topic - the piece focuses on government investigations. I've found citing "scientific consensus" difficult in the past, so I'm not very hopeful we'll be able to find anything showing "most scientists reject the lab hypothesis". There were a couple of papers on the lab-leak hypothesis / the source of the virus, some were very skeptical, another quite recent one less so. It might be good to include those, I also wonder if the lancet commission has anything interesting to say as well. There was some interesting genetics on the topic as well... though some of that potentially walks us toward conspiracy theory territory because it has a lot of "degrees of freedom" Talpedia (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

One question is how WP:MEDRS we want to be on the article. I would note

Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.

And the rationale of "bad medical advice can place readers exist" does not necessarily apply to research into the source of a virus (though clearly, if we were to claim that the virus does not exist or is conflated with flu etc then it does become a problem)

Talpedia (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

15 January, from Secretary of State US gov.comEnsuring a Transparent, Thorough Investigation of COVID-19’s Origin...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Until the CCP allows a full and thorough accounting of what happened in Wuhan, it is only a matter of time until China births another pandemic and inflicts it on the Chinese people, and the world. The tone of that piece is interesting. Not what I would normally expect. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah because politicians would never promulgate conspiracy theories, would they? Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a sentence such as "two conflicting theories have gained prominence, A and B" is unbalanced when the two theories are not equally prominent. I believe that a more typical balance would sound like "Science says™ that it was a natural occurrence, but politicians and other people have speculated on whether it could have been a lab accident, bioterrorism, or other man-made disaster". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate"?! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a new addition [12]. I'm not a fan... Talpedia (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed it but was (not unexpectedly) reverted. What does increasingly difficult to ignore even mean? It's astonishingly vague — all sorts of garbage becomes hard to ignore when it's repeated loudly enough — and has the distinct feel of Just Asking Questions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a direct quotation from the cited Cnet article, so I guess it means whatever the journalist wanted it to mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if we could find a better source for the "prominence" of the lab leak hypothesis. I thought about looking in broadsheets, aad has having a read through of the lancet publication as I thought I might have some context. Talpedia (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like two-thirds of the current version has been written by the editor who added that "increasingly difficult to ignore" line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems all-too-easy to ignore/dismiss in the WP:BESTSOURCES. As for any conspiracy theory, by contrast there is a stack of stuff out there in middle-brown sources (and lower) wondering about this mystery: maybe there's something in it? And here we have some editors extremely keen to advocate for it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An unmarked direct quote should be deleted per WP:COPYVIO. Though in this particular case, it reads more like an ex post facto justification for some synthesis: scrape together marginal sources to support a conclusion, and then slap on another footnote to make that conclusion not technically original. And, really, CNET? The consumer-electronics website? Even if the origin of a disease somehow weren't a scientific question, I wouldn't be going to get my news about it from people whose latest story is "HBO subscribers: Watch Wonder Woman 1984 for free with HBO Max before it leaves Jan. 24". XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An unmarked quotation is not automatically a COPYVIO. (Might be Wikipedia:Plagiarism, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that some related noticeboard discussions are:
  • WP:FTN § Wuhan Lab Leak again (Special:Permalink/1001661263)
  • WP:ANI § Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance (multi-subtopic Special:Permalink/1001678492).

  —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please watch WP:MEDRS

An IP made this edit. His response to getting consensus for the edit is this on my user talk page here. I'm going to disengage given the quality of his posts but others should probably keep an eye on MEDRS for any non-consensus, problematic changes. I reverted him twice but should not revert again. I'm not concerned about my user page, just that changes could be made which change meaning. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

medical editor

User talk:Flyer22 Frozen should anyone wish to leave a message--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please wait for confirmation. Flyer's alleged death has been reported multiple times over the years, and there is a chance that this is yet again just someone's sick idea of a joke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's apparently been confirmed by ArbCom. Very sad news. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Flyer22_and_WanderingWanda_case_dismissed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Before anyone's unmentionables get in a bunch: some time ago a third party used a throw-away email address to circulate "news" of Flyer22's passing (I've seen it myself, via WhatamIdoing), and Flyer22 has long had a criticism page at one of those sites devoted to venting about and trolling Wikipedia. This time, the actual news was from her brother, and previous correspondents confirm it is from the same e-mail address used when he has contacted them from his account here via "Email this user", so it is not a hoax. Flyer22 has been openly concerned about her health in postings here since at least 2013 (e.g. one of her user subpages has some ruminations about maybe writing an editing guide before her time is up), and several of us knew from personal communication that she was not doing well toward the end of 2020. It was reasonable for WhatamIdoing to wonder if there was confirmation. So, please do not let any dramatics erupt here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Like SMc said. We also know that Flyer had some username changes, including Flyer22reborn, which was a tongue in cheek renaming where she was putting some old history behind her. Real people are having tough times, let’s keep it cool. Montanabw^(talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sad news. I only worked with Flyer a few times and my impression was she was always doing good work to keep articles in shape, in some difficult areas. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Concur. This is really sad news. Ran across her numerous times in hormone and sexual development articles and was really impressed with her depth of knowledge and her respect for the facts. This is really a loss for Wikipeida. Boghog (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Short tasks?

Hey all. I haven't been around so much (and haven't done any major content writing) since I have been horribly tied up IRL with the massive amount of COVID cases on one side, as well as being part of the mass vaccination effort on another... leaving barely any time for a few microseconds of sleep/rest (I kid, but more than 5 hours has not been had in the past month or so for me). That being said, I've been able to watch things on my watchlist and pop in occasionally, and with the processes re:vaccination getting more streamlined and it not being the "first rodeo", I suspect that I'll continue to have a few 5-10 minute breaks during the day free, as well as some time in the evening I may be able to dedicate to some small tasks. If anyone knows of anything that can be gone through over time related to medical articles, and/or has any discussions come up that don't take a ton of time to research but would benefit from another opinion, please feel free to let me know. Hope all of you are safe and well, and I just want everyone to know that I fully intend to resume working on injection-related articles when I have more time to dedicate to WP :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Great to hear from you, and hope you stay well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Berchanhimez, taking you up on the offer, if you ever have that 5 or 10 minutes, hemothorax would use some eyes as to quality of prose for WP:FAC. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apetamin

I've created a stub for Apetamin, a dangerous weight-gain syrup being sold on social media to gullible women and girls. Please take a look at it and see if I've overlooked anything important. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So that's where those odd bodies are coming from; that is really sick news. Others should look in here; there is only one PMID-indexed article, which is a case report, but there are lots of news reports. My take on subjects like this is that it is better to offer something on the subject than not to, but others may disagree as to NOTNEWS and notability. More opinions needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuroscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)